Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

[Alejandro Nova]

Rebecca Black OS

Hey, that can't work. It's Rebecca Black OS, so it must be shit! /s

[corebob]

I can understand his frustration at not being the poster boy after all the technical work that he did. At the end of the day, though, by now he should know life isn't fair.

The GNU code base is degrading though, maybe he should go back and do some coding. Note that people are moving from GCC to LLVM (and not just due to licensing concerns).

Well... if it's any consolation to him, I don't use GNU/Linux or Linux, I use Fedora.

I pretty much agree with this.

Basically, the kernel is called Linux and the tool collection is called GNU. Why complicate things any further?

[Annabel]

Why isn't it called GNU/MIT/Linux? I haven't seen one desktop Linux distro working without X11 which isn't a GNU GPL Project.

People do not call it as GNU/Linux because of the license, if it was like that it would be GPL/Linux
the right thing would be GNU/X.Org/Linux

[wizard69]

Hey, that can't work. It's Rebecca Black OS, so it must be shit! /s

How true! It would be far more powerful as the Claudia Black OS. It would most certainly kick ass then!

[wizard69]

Time for people to wake up!

Seriously folks, far to many people lapped up GPL 3 when it came out totally oblivious to how damaging the license is. It is time for people to wake up and smell the air after Stallman and GPL-3 have fallen off the deep end.

Open software has far better licensing arrangements than the latest GPL. Frankly those license protect the code better than GPL which pollutes every code base with nut case programmer that want to control every bodies contribution to the code base.

Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.

[bapfreak]

Why isn't it called GNU/MIT/Linux? I haven't seen one desktop Linux distro working without X11 which isn't a GNU GPL Project.

Excellent point!

I would really prefer that the FSF give up on the HURD kernel, which is barely usable and reeks of "not invented here syndrome", work on officially partnering with the Linux "kernel team", and name Linux as the official GNU kernel. At which point it will be appropriate for people to call it Linux even under Richard Stallman's logic.

Unfortunately this will never happen.

[blackiwid]

Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.

Could u give some facts that makes your claim not just fud?

U dont care if people use your code in comercial projects and give u no money and or use your code to take freedom of users with some digital restriction management?
If thats ok for u go ahead, I dont.

and how do such people control u if you give them code. they released their project under the gpl3 if you contribute to it, you either have to follow only the gpl3 or you fork on that terms, there is no magic priest behind it, that makes u do other things on top of that afterwards.

[Ibidem]

1-I call dupe.
Not a hint at fsf.org, or at stallman.org, or gnu.org. And imgur doesn't have the AGPL trine, so not a chance he'd post there...

Now, a few random points:
-Stallman has advocated this term; it was his term before the "GNU/Linux" campaign. It quickly died of mockery. I don't think he'd resurrect it.

-Restrictions on naming are not compatible with the GPL, and whether they would qualify as "free" is dubious. But then, he's not actually restricting it...

-Looking at the FSF's projects, I think they'd better get their own house in order if they want credit: gnu tar comes from pdtar, cssc from some ancient PD code, gnash from a PD flash library, bison from a PD "yacc" that also was the source for byacc...

-To quote Rob Landley, mantainer of the kernel documentation: "GNU/Linux isn't: either it's a mere aggregation or it's a licensing violation."

[brosis]

Seriously folks, far to many people lapped up GPL 3 when it came out totally oblivious to how damaging the license is. It is time for people to wake up and smell the air after Stallman and GPL-3 have fallen off the deep end.

Open software has far better licensing arrangements than the latest GPL. Frankly those license protect the code better than GPL which pollutes every code base with nut case programmer that want to control every bodies contribution to the code base.

Wake up, Wake up, before you get screwed over after contributing to some GPL 3 code base.

Aight, mate - wake up, smell airs, clean teeth, pray to your owners. Meanwhile, we will stay thankfull to Stallman for the free software evolution.
Or as Linus said:
Linux is "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)"

When I see shit flying direction RMS, I acknowledge he is doing the right thing, hence his enemies yell.

Yell on!

[garegin]

As a proud hater of Linux and the FOSS "movement" I think the "Linux is not GNU/Linux" line that the kernel cabal uses it total crap. The OS was always the GNU. The kernel was chosen to be Linux because that's what they was available at the time. It is easy to see that when building an OS, the kernel is not the most challenging part. You can use "Linux" distros with different kernels, namely BSD and Hurd. I'm sure they could use the OpenSolaris kernel if they wanted to or even XNU.